Obama's Speech & Southern Islamic Separatists

[Jingthing]

I think they really not care at all, as soon as Obama leaves, they start sliding each others throats again and re-load the Ak-47's.....

Yeah, but they do dig that he's named Hussein ...

He should pull all his troops out of Iraq/ Afghanistan and every country connected to the Middle east, stop sponsoring both Palestine and stop giving weapons to Israel, then stop trying to tell other countries what they can and can't do.

OK, thanks for sharing, but back to the REAL world ...

Edited June 4, 2009 by Jingthing

[Spee]

I agree the Muslim world is not a unified thing. We agree on more than you think, including deep pessimism that Obama's approach is really going to work.

Frankly, however, I found your reference to a book that I can't easily obtain kind of rude, why not tell us YOUR arguments to my statement. I have no idea what you are talking about in that book, except I did find the author is a right wing thinker, big surpise there ... You also took my comment completely out of the context it was written, as a response to another poster's point about Muslim birth rates in Europe. If you are arguing that pre-holocaust European Jews were reproducing themselves into demographic dominance in Europe, of course they weren't.

Dr. Sowell can hardly be labeled a right-wing thinker. The guy was born into poverty in the Jim Crow south, raised parentless in Harlem, and yet through hard work, dedication and education grew to become one of the foremost economists and social commentators of the last few generations. He does his research and tells it like it is, period. The fact that his views (proven through research and facts) are those of a fiscal and social conservative are hardly right-wing, as the majority of Americans are fiscally and socially conservative. I would say that makes his opinions those of a mainstream centrist. [Edit: You don't need a book to get a summary of Dr. Sowell's research and conclusions. Wikipedia has a very good summary of them.]

Your comment was taken completely in context. You clearly implied (if not explicitly stated) that pre-holocaust European Jews were not in a position of dominance in Europe (whether by reproduction or other means). This implication (or statement) is patently and absurdly false.

Germans (and more specifically German Jews) were widely migrated throughout Europe (primarily eastern Europe) for many decades prior to the 1st and 2nd World Wars. They worked their way into positions of affluence and influence in their new countries through education, hard work and economic entrepreneurship. Further, they brought with them their standards for education, literacy and work ethic to many areas of Europe which had none of these things prior to their arrival, for the betterment of the societies in which they settled.

Personal economic freedom promotes tolerance and civil society, plain pure and simple. Those who don't allow or want personal economic freedom in their nation, are intolerant and do not wish to live in a civil society, period, end of story.

Sounds like Ronald Reagan. Ho hum ...

BTW, calling people clueless is just a meaningless insult, just make your point with reason or forget about it ...

Well, if the foo shits. You compound your demonstration of your own ignorance by implying Reagan was the first to demand personal and economic freedom. The concept has been around in theory and in practice for centuries. Where it has been accepted and implemented, there has been prosperity of the majority. Where it has been rejected or disallowed, there has been misery of the majority. Until you can get past your own mind block, you are your own obstacle.

Trying to get back on topic, would you or anyone else care to suggest how personal economic freedom would not lead to a solution in the South of Thailand, and if Obama were really concerned with this ongoing conflict, that he wouldn't overtly suggest it to the Thai government?

Edited June 4, 2009 by Spee

[ilovefashionTV]

I think they really not care at all, as soon as Obama leaves, they start sliding each others throats again and re-load the Ak-47's.....

Yeah, but they do dig that he's named Hussein ...

He should pull all his troops out of Iraq/ Afghanistan and every country connected to the Middle east, stop sponsoring both Palestine and stop giving weapons to Israel, then stop trying to tell other countries what they can and can't do.

OK, thanks for sharing, but back to the REAL world ...

It would be a genuine shift in policy, Obama the now self proclaimed nearly Muslim is just a cuddly more presentable version of Bush.

Why shouldnt he and America stop giving weapons to Israel and billions of taxpayer dollars that Americans cant afford to Palestinians who hate America?

[Jingthing]

Spee:

Dr. Sowell, not a right-winger?

Rush Limbaugh is an admirer of Sowell's writing

Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University

The Hoover Institution is influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements.

Wiki

OK, if you don't like right winger, I think we can agree on American conservative/libertarian as his political point of view.

SPEE: Your comment was taken completely in context. You clearly implied (if not explicitly stated) that pre-holocaust European Jews were not in a position of dominance in Europe (whether by reproduction or other means). This implication (or statement) is patently and absurdly false.

No. No. No. No. No, I did not. I was talking about population DEMOGRAPHICS only. Go back and read the posts if you please. I made no comment whatsoever about your arguments about other kinds of dominance. Please stop telling me I said or implied things I DID NOT. Thanks for expounding a bit on Mr. Sowell's views about Jews in pre-holocaust Europe. Sounds interesting, I would be open to reading that book if I can get a copy.

SPEE: You compound your demonstration of your own ignorance by implying Reagan was the first to demand personal and economic freedom.

I never said first. I never meant to imply it either. Regrets if you read it that way.

I am not a conservative or libertarian. I do not believe libertarianism is the answer for societies. I like capitalism, but within reasonable regulation. People have different political views. Just because you are a hard core libertarian does not mean everyone who isn't is ignorant.

Also, I am not expert on the South Thailand Muslim conflicts but I am pretty certain that your proposed solution is pitifully simplistic.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Jingthing

[bonobo]

 

For example, he supposedly represents the great black masses of the US, of whom each and every ancestor was forcefully stolen into slavery (if you believe the nonsense taught in government monopoly school history books). What history doesn't mention is that the US changed their government and fought a war to stop slavery, and other western nations made similar changes. History also doesn't mention that slavery and indentured servitude remains common practice in Muslim nations. To support one and condone the other is ignorance or hypocrisy, take your pick.

I am taking the time to read your posts as you obviously can string together coherent sentences.  But I get lost by some of your claims.  I picked the above quote as containing a few examples of these.

The "nonsense taught by the government?"  Well, I am not sure that we had a wealth of black Africans coming voluntarily to the US during the slavery era.  As for Africans who have come since then, well, I have never heard them or their children claim that they had been forefully stolen into slavery.

And history doesn't teach about the Civil War?  What history books don't teach about it?  The war was about states versus federal rights with slavery being only one aspect of it, but history books teach this war as the war to end slavery.

You are right about history books not teaching that slavery and indentured servitude exist today in the Muslim world--that is because history books, by their very purpose of being, teach about the past, not about today.  And there are many sources available which decry and disseminate the fact that slavery and indentured servitude are not dead but still exist.

[Brigante7]

After listening to Obama's speach, it's pretty clear the American people chose the wrong man, the problem is it will affect the whole world when he gives in to the muslims.

Brigante7.

[7baht]

the islamic problem in thailand has lil to to do with global terrorism being it can be exploited for the terrorist use but if ur a bit on the know regarding this small portion of radical islam u will know that the burden of the 1900-1901 trade agreement made by the Uk and Thailand to strip the 3 southern provinces from Malaysia for Tin mining rights and seed them to Thailand for additional trading rights is where the truth of this problem lies. fact is the Uk stole the land and sold it to thailand. Malaysians were never allowed to voice their opinions regarding this trade deal between Thailand and the UK welcome to the truth

[Scott]

To paraphrase someone: There will always be good people doing good things and there will always be bad people doing bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

I thing Obama's taking a page from a previous president and walking softly, but carrying a big stick.

The South, however, is complicated by more than just religion. Like many other conflicts in the world, there is a high level of mistreatment of people in the South and their enemy is the Thai gov't--not the US (directly).

[garro]

I occasionally read posts by people who hold views of the world so different than mine that I have come to realise that debate with them would be futile; they likely feel the same about my views.

For illustration I find it easy to divide the world into three groups ( I know that the world is more complicated than this); there are those who prefer violence as the answer to differences, those who prefer discussion, and the vast majority of people which will be in the middle somewhere. The people in the middle can be reasoned with and whatever side they favour will have the upper hand in the world. If Obama shows some success with his diplomacy, which I'm sure he will, these people will have no problem supporting discussion over the gun. Violent extremists can not survive without support from the middle.

Of course this does not mean that the men of hate will go away; they will always need somebody to hate and show anger towards. They will be sidelined though and unable to cause too much damage. Of course, there will be the occasional books with well-honed arguments; people of any persuasion can produce these. If you have months and months to research a book you can make any argument seem reasonable - any fool can see that. Only those looking for comradeship in their petty hatreds will fall for these arguments completely.

War has never worked and will never work. There was no winner in either of the great wars - millions dead is never a winning outcome. The Nazis rose to power because the vast majority had legitimate fears which were easily manipulated and turned to aggression by the hate-mongers.

People in the South of Thailand and elsewhere will turn away from aggression once they come to realise that they are being listened to.

[mogoso]

But Personal economic freedom promotes tolerance and civil society, plain pure and simple. Those who don't allow or want personal economic freedom in their nation, are intolerant and do not wish to live in a civil society, period, end of story.

But doesn't having personal economic freedom mean you have to be responsible for your own life. That would mean having to plan for your medical expenses and pay what the insurance you pay for doesn't cover. You couldn't whine to the gov't to take care of you.

Wouldn't you have to plan and save for your retirement and invest throughout your life to have the type of life you'd want, not the small stipend of social sercurity will provide.

Wouldn't the education you recieve have to teach you basic macro and micro economics and the simple things such as reading the contracts that you sign, how to handle a checking account, understanding the interest you must pay on borrowed money ect ect in short go into life with life skills. You'd be able understand just how the gov't short changes you.

You'd understand that with gov't provided security there isn't freedom, that without freedom there isn't security.

Its just too hard having to think for yourself, when your gov't will be happy to do it for you, for a price.

[Spee]

The "nonsense taught by the government?"  

Yes, absolutely. In the case of the US, the government has a virtual monopology on education from the age of about 5 through university. They don't teach. they indoctrinate. For example, during last year's presidential campaign, Obama was nothing more than a two-term state senator and a part-time one-term US senator with a spotty and unproven record of leading or accomplishing anything. Yet by the start of the fall term last year, history and civics classes were being taught with new books containing entire chapters on Obama. That is not teaching. That is indoctrination.

For other examples from people whose opinions I highly respect, I would encourage you to watch and read:

http://freedomchannel.blogspot.com/2007/12...hats-wrong.html

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032901.asp

Well, I am not sure that we had a wealth of black Africans coming voluntarily to the US during the slavery era.

The same could be said of huge numbers of Irish, Chinese, Japanese and other ethnic and racial groups which came to the US as slaves or indentured servants during that period. What is your point?

[chuckd]

Having spent some 30 years working and living in the Middle East and having spent quite a bit of time being force fed anything and everything Obama, it is my considered opinion his speech will make little to no impact in either the Middle East or the South of Thailand.

The Muslims in the south couldn't care less what Obama says and thinks. He is not part of their daily lives and has little to no impact on what happens there. The radicals want a separatist state with Sharia law and the moderates only want to be left alone to live their lives in peace. Unfortunately the moderates in the world of Islam are the silent majority. They will need to stand up on their hind legs and say, "enough is enough". They must stop the terrorism themselves. Until they are willing to do this, violence will continue against both themselves and the Thai government.

As far as the Middle East is concerned, I cannot see the speech making any impact, other than the realization by most Muslims that Obama is a great speaker and is all style and no substance. The main objection I have heard against the US government has always been the favoritism that is displayed to Israel over the Palestinians. This favoritism began with the establishment of Israel in 1946 and has been carried forward by every administration since. The Arabs didn't like it in 1974, when I first went to the Middle East, and they still don't like it. The only way the Arabs will be happy is if the US government completely abandons Israel and allows the Arab majority to roll it under.

Obama can talk all he wants to about a Palestinian state but until we get Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran out of the picture there will never be a Palestinian state. I see no way Obama can talk to the Iranians and make them see the light. I spent five years in Iran during the Shah's regime and only left when the Ayatollah came into power in 1979. The 1979 revolutionaries have little regard for the West and even less trust and it has been this way since Jimmy Carter did his thing in 1978. Obama will not be able to "speak softly and carry a big stick". In the minds of the Iranians and the Arabs I have talked to, they are convinced he will never use the stick. He will be ineffectual.

The Iranians are going hellbent for leather after nuclear weapons and if they get them, a nuclear arms race will break out in the Middle East which could lead to WWIII. The real threat now is Iran, and Obama will not be able to talk them out of anything. They will do exactly as they wish regardless of world opinion. Only Israel can stop them and they will have to do it on their own. Obama will not help Israel militarily and Netanyahu and the Iranians know this. Israel must also act before Iran is armed with the SA-20 Air Defense System they are purchasing from Russia. This could also alter the make-up over there.

My opinion of Obama is somewhat pragmatic. I believe he has charisma, is a great speaker and has brought some excellent speech writers into his administration. Other than that, I see him as nothing more than another sleezy politician from the politics of Chicago.

This is somewhat disjointed and I would ask your forgiveness. I am trying to write it while the wife is yelling at me to mow the yard. I hope the angst isn't showing through.

[Jingthing]

The Iranians are going hellbent for leather after nuclear weapons and if they get them, a nuclear arms race will break out in the Middle East which could lead to WWIII. The real threat now is Iran, and Obama will not be able to talk them out of anything. They will do exactly as they wish regardless of world opinion. Only Israel can stop them and they will have to do it on their own.

Sadly, I agree with most of this, but I do not believe even Israel can stop Iran from developing the arms. Sure they can do targeted strikes at KNOWN sites and all that will do is SLOW them down, such attacks will not stop them, in fact, they are likely to make things worse in the long run. The only way is to somehow force Iran into international overview, they will never do this willingly. Iran is the key and it is most likely already too late. So ... I blame Bush. Why do Iraq, he only made Iran MUCH stronger.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Jingthing

[robblok]

We keep back peddling. This guy Muammar al-Gaddafi , reckons in 50 years Europe will be an Islamic continent in 50 years without a shot being fired. eg France the Christians have a birthrate of 1.3 per couple. The Muslims 8.1, go figure.

This type of fear-mongering was the exact same tactic used to stir up hatred against the Jews and all the other groups who have been persecuted through the centuries. You are carrying on a noble tradition. You must be proud.

Dont know how recent you have been in Europe, but i can tell you this Muslims are a big problem in Holland. Highest crime rate ever, especially Moroccan. Those dammed left wing idiots ignore the problem and let it fester. I agree that Islam should be stopped spreading in Europe.

We should just do what they do with other religions in their countries.

I never had a problem with anyone but it just pains me to see what is happening to my country.

Anyway far off topic

I do hope for relaxation in the South of Thailand.

[Spee]

But Personal economic freedom promotes tolerance and civil society, plain pure and simple. Those who don't allow or want personal economic freedom in their nation, are intolerant and do not wish to live in a civil society, period, end of story.

But doesn't having personal economic freedom mean you have to be responsible for your own life.

Ding-ding-ding! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Its just too hard having to think for yourself, when your gov't will be happy to do it for you, for a price.

Yeah, and ask a 20 year old 5th generation welfare mother getting pop out her third illegitimate "shorty" by a third different sperm donor on to the dole, exactly how all that government generosity is working out.

[bonobo]

The "nonsense taught by the government?"  

Yes, absolutely. In the case of the US, the government has a virtual monopology on education from the age of about 5 through university. They don't teach. they indoctrinate. For example, during last year's presidential campaign, Obama was nothing more than a two-term state senator and a part-time one-term US senator with a spotty and unproven record of leading or accomplishing anything. Yet by the start of the fall term last year, history and civics classes were being taught with new books containing entire chapters on Obama. That is not teaching. That is indoctrination.

For other examples from people whose opinions I highly respect, I would encourage you to watch and read:

http://freedomchannel.blogspot.com/2007/12...hats-wrong.html

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032901.asp

Well, I am not sure that we had a wealth of black Africans coming voluntarily to the US during the slavery era.

The same could be said of huge numbers of Irish, Chinese, Japanese and other ethnic and racial groups which came to the US as slaves or indentured servants during that period. What is your point?

My point is that you wrote that the US school system incorrectly teaches that black Africans were brought to the US as slaves, and you wrote that the Civil War is not taught.  Both of these assertions are incorrect.

Your point about Obama is rather strange, too.  I am not sure how many first-term senators get much ink in history books.  But presidents do.  So when Obama was elected, it seems rather reasonable that more on his life was added.  I would pretty much guess that the same thing happened to both Bush's, Clinton, Carter, Ford, and so-on.

Your ascertain that the education system in the US indoctrinates rather than teaches.  I happen to disagree, but that is a matter of interpretation.  But the government having a  monopoly on education?  That just isn't true. According to Council for American Private Education ( CAPE ), private schools account for 11% of all K-12 students, and another 3% are home-schooled.  And in the universites, the percentages in private schools is much, much higher.

As a former grad school professor, I happen to think that at least on the upper end of the academic ladder, US-schooled students are pretty well prepared for grad school, unlike Thai-educated students, for example. And while Japanese and Chinese students seem to be better prepared for rigid disciplines such as accounting and statistics, the US and European students seem to be better prepared for courses which require independent thinking, (These are broad generalities, of course.)

Edited June 5, 2009 by bonobo

[bonobo]

This is somewhat disjointed and I would ask your forgiveness. I am trying to write it while the wife is yelling at me to mow the yard. I hope the angst isn't showing through.

Your post was not disjointed at all.  I don't necessarily agree with everything you wrote (or maybe I just don't want to agree with it all), but your writing was clear and to-the-point.

Unfortunately, I do have to agree with some of your more pessimistic points, though.

Edited June 5, 2009 by bonobo

[Ulysses G.]

This is somewhat disjointed and I would ask your forgiveness. I am trying to write it while the wife is yelling at me to mow the yard. I hope the angst isn't showing through.

Your post was not disjointed at all. I don't necessarily agree with everything you write (or maybe I just don't want to agree with it all), but your writing was clear and to-the-point.

I agreed with much of it and found it most interesting!

[patklang]

But Jews were never poised to dominate Europe by their birth rate and conversion rate, so you are comparing two situations that are completely different. Demographics are real and they do bring real change, to wit, the Hispanicization of the USA.

Straying way off topic, but your response is so clueless that I felt compelled to respond. You really need to study the facts of European history. For a starter, may I suggest the excellent book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell? In particular, I would recommend the essays "Are Jews Generic," "The Real History of Slavery," and "Germans and History."

There are massive cultural differences between Islamic nations and western nations, and we should all applaud Obama's efforts to bridge these gaps peacefully. Its worth a try.

Another clueless moment. Islamic nations are all too happy to use the US as a foil, because it masks their own internal problems and hatred of each other. Just as the massive black on black hatred and homicide rate in the US is purposely masked by racial overtones of white on black crime, so to is the fact that Muslims have killed millions more fellow Muslims through personal and international hatred than any conflict with a western nation.

Obama is not bridging a gap. All he is doing is demonstrating his own ignorance of the facts, thereby subjecting himself and the nation he supposedly leads and represents to world-wide ridicule.

For example, he supposedly represents the great black masses of the US, of whom each and every ancestor was forcefully stolen into slavery (if you believe the nonsense taught in government monopoly school history books). What history doesn't mention is that the US changed their government and fought a war to stop slavery, and other western nations made similar changes. History also doesn't mention that slavery and indentured servitude remains common practice in Muslim nations. To support one and condone the other is ignorance or hypocrisy, take your pick. Similar conclusions can be reached for many other recent Barry-isms.

To try to get back on topic, there is only one true solution for all of these problems as well as those in the South of Thailand, and it has been known for many centuries. This is the solution of personal economic freedom. By and large, I think it is fair to say that all most of the world's people want is an opportunity to earn enough money to support themselves and their families in their chosen lifestyle. Inherent by-products of economic freedom are personal liberty and religious freedom. In other words, remove the obstacles that are preventing economic freedom and the other prejudices and problems will take care of themselves.

Personal economic freedom promotes tolerance and civil society, plain pure and simple. Those who don't allow or want personal economic freedom in their nation, are intolerant and do not wish to live in a civil society, period, end of story.

You make some very good points there,but when people have enough money to support themselves,they get greedy and want more,more more,then we have the wars again.

[clausewitz]

there is only one true solution for all of these problems as well as those in the South of Thailand, and it has been known for many centuries. This is the solution of personal economic freedom.. In other words, remove the obstacles that are preventing economic freedom and the other prejudices and problems will take care of themselves.

Personal economic freedom promotes tolerance and civil society, plain pure and simple.

OSama bin laden comes from a billionaire family. All the suicide team who flew on 9/11 were from middle to upper middle class familes.

[bravingbangkok]

I think what we all need to do first of all is accept that there is no God. That would be a good start !

[garro]

there is only one true solution for all of these problems as well as those in the South of Thailand, and it has been known for many centuries. This is the solution of personal economic freedom.. In other words, remove the obstacles that are preventing economic freedom and the other prejudices and problems will take care of themselves.

Personal economic freedom promotes tolerance and civil society, plain pure and simple.

OSama bin laden comes from a billionaire family. All the suicide team who flew on 9/11 were from middle to upper middle class familes.

People like Bin Laden are attracted to the power and not necessarily the money. There will always be people that support war and terrorism. Without the support of a vast number of people though they would just join the other loons on internet forums. Muslims have legitimate fears and grievances which are being manipulated.

The idea that Muslims are trying to take over the world is created by people out to cause mischief. Islam has a great history of tolerance. During the Ottoman Empire, Christians often fled there to avoid persecution from other Christians. With the exception of Saudi, you see Christian communities in most Muslim countries. For centuries the small numbers of Muslims in Europe were treated with great mistrust and suffered from the same bigotries as did the Jews.

[garro]

I think what we all need to do first of all is accept that there is no God. That would be a good start !

This is akin to saying; that if everyone believe the same thing as I did then we would all live in peace. A childish idea, and the sort of world that would not appeal to me in the least.

[stingray]

Nothing against Obama, But is there only Obama in this world? Obama here, Obama there, i can't understad. Peaple look at him like some kind of God. Bush wasn't ok, we know that all, but why the American peaple keep him for 8 years?. Clinton and Reagan was good Presidents either. Don't forget USA was Cash rich when Clinton finished his therm

[bravingbangkok]

I think what we all need to do first of all is accept that there is no God. That would be a good start !

This is akin to saying; that if everyone believe the same thing as I did then we would all live in peace. A childish idea, and the sort of world that would not appeal to me in the least.

How is it a childish idea ? do you really think there is a God ?

Edited June 5, 2009 by bravingbangkok

[bravingbangkok]

I think what we all need to do first of all is accept that there is no God. That would be a good start !

This is akin to saying; that if everyone believe the same thing as I did then we would all live in peace. A childish idea, and the sort of world that would not appeal to me in the least.

How is it a childish idea ? do you really think their is a God ?

Adding to that, how many lives have been lost over the years in the name of religion ? So it is not childish to fight over something you have no real proof of is it ?

[bravingbangkok]

You are a real fu7ck wit for blindly calling something childish !

I believe in Jesus, I believe in Muhammad and I believe in Buddha and all the other saints in every religion, I just do not think they received the words they spoke from God but rather thought up their social teachings by themselves. It was institutions that turned these teachings into religion to command some sort of power, legal structure and fear over the general population.

Any of that childish for you, you silly little pri7ck !

Edited June 5, 2009 by bravingbangkok

[garro]

I think what we all need to do first of all is accept that there is no God. That would be a good start !

This is akin to saying; that if everyone believe the same thing as I did then we would all live in peace. A childish idea, and the sort of world that would not appeal to me in the least.

How is it a childish idea ? do you really think their is a God ?

Adding to that, how many lives have been lost over the years in the name of religion ? So it is not childish to fight over something you have no real proof of is it ?

What I believe in is not the issue. The fact is that a lot of people in the world believe in God or gods and we can neither prove or disprove its/ their existence. We all have our own beliefs.

The silly argument that all wars were started by religion is just absurd. Hitler, Pol-Pot, Stalin, et al were not famous for their religious activities.

[bravingbangkok]

This is akin to saying; that if everyone believe the same thing as I did then we would all live in peace. A childish idea, and the sort of world that would not appeal to me in the least.

How is it a childish idea ? do you really think their is a God ?

Adding to that, how many lives have been lost over the years in the name of religion ? So it is not childish to fight over something you have no real proof of is it ?

What I believe in is not the issue. The fact is that a lot of people in the world believe in God or gods and we can neither prove or disprove its/ their existence. We all have our own beliefs.

The silly argument that all wars were started by religion is just absurd. Hitler, Pol-Pot, Stalin, et al were not famous for their religious activities.

Seriously get some education, if you think there is no history between Judaism, Stalin and Communism then...well I just don't know. The world did not start at 1900 you know ?

The crusades spring to mind.

[bravingbangkok]

Karl Marx was born a Jew lol you really are clueless. I would never stoop to call you childish because what does childish mean ? acting immature which I think we have both not done on this thread but you choice to exploit the term incorrectly for your own satisfaction.